Download 18000 times the speed of light Houston, We`ve got a problem!

Interpreting SN 2006gy from a
Modified Ritzian Viewpoint
AAAS-SWARM
Natural Philosophy Alliance
University of New Mexico
April 9, 2008
Robert Fritzius
Shade Tree Physics
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1
• Swiss Physicst Walter Ritz’s (1908)
ballistic emission theory of
electrodynamics was (and still is) the most
serious competion to Einstein’s (1905)
Special Theory of Relativity (SRT).
• Ritz’s theory was modeled on the
Newtonian emission theory of light and
dispensed with relativistic:
• time dilation,
• mass increases, and
• length contractions.
Walter Ritz
• “Recherches critiques sur
• l'Électrodynamique Générale,”
•
Annales de Chimie et de Physique, 13, 145, (1908).
• English Translation
• Critical Researches on General Electrodynamics
• http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908a.htm
• Russian Trans.
• http://ritz-btr.narod.ru/contents.html
Similarities
• Both theories held that light travels at c
with respect to their sources.
Differences
• SRT postulates that all uniformly moving
observers measure a constant speed of
light regardless of source to observer
relative velocity.
•
c’ = c
Differences (Cont.)
Ritz’s theory postulates that the relative
velocity between source and observer
affects an observer’s measurement of light
velocity.
c’ = c+v
Said in another way…
• Where c’ = c + kv
• Einstein would have
k=0
• Whereas Ritz would have k = 1
• Many tests have been done to determine
value of k.
Problems
• Einstein required changing our classical
ideas about time, distance to make his
k = 0.
• Ritz’s k=1 doesn’t work in dispersive
media because of extinction.*
• *Extinction, as used here, needs defining.
Ritz Problems
• Ritz’s emission particles were not
affected by interactions with charges
in a medium. (No absorption or
scattering events)
• Ritz died in 1909 at age 31 and didn’t
get to work the details of how the real
world affected his emission particles.
John Fox’s (1965) Extinction Theorem
When a light wave sets into motion
the charges in a medium; these in
turn emit new waves whose centers
move in vacuum with the velocity of
the charges of the medium.
J.G. Fox, “Evidence Against Emission Theories,”
Am. J. Phys., 33, 1 (1965), p. 4
Limitations on Ritz’s Relativity
• According to Fox the extinction distance
for visible light in earth’s atmosphere at
sea level is about 0.3 cm, and in local
interstellar space it should be about one
light year.
• If Fox is right, then Ritz’s relativity may
work on microscopic (nano) scales or for
modest distances in the near vacuum of
space.
• Extinction is an exponential function.
• Five extinction lengths in a medium and
the original energy may be considered as
being completely replaced.
• Extinction length is inversely proportional
to wavelength. UV or X-rays, etc., travel
further than visible light before extinction
completes itself.
According to Robert Shankland (1950),
Einstein once considered an emission
theory of light, similar to Ritz's theory
(during the years before 1905) but he
abandoned it . . .
• …because he could think of no form
of differential equation which could
have solutions representing waves
whose velocity depended on the
motion of the source. . . .
Einstein, cont.
• …because he could think of no form
of differential equation which could
have solutions representing waves
whose velocity depended on the
motion of the source. . . .
• (He started with Maxwell’s equations.)
In this case the emission theory
would lead to phase relations such
that the propagated light would be all
badly "mixed up" and might even
"back up [time-wise] on itself".
***
It can be shown that this apparent
weakness can be an advantage in
understanding variable stars.
Ritz rejected Maxwell’s Systems of Partial
Differential Equations
• According to Ritz
• The equations represent stresses and
elastic deformations in the “non-existent”
solid ether.
• They allow the future to affect the present.
• They are fundamentally inappropriate to
express the comprehensive laws of
electrodynamics.
• Getting back to Einstein’s problem with
“badly mixed up light.”
According to Ritz…
If [a radiating point] P' has an oscillatory
movement, and if the distance PP' is
sufficiently large, ...
it is possible that the waves starting at
moments t'(1), t'(2), ...
where the speed of P' had different values
v'(1), v'(2), ...,
will arrive at P simultaneously.
In 1913 Willem de Sitter, a collaborator
with Einstein, sought to bury Ritz’s
(c+v) relativity with his well known
“binary star” argument.
In 1913 he published the following four
papers to that end. (Two in German
and two in English)
• Ein astronomischer Beweis für die
Konstanz der Lichgeshwindigkeit
(An Astronomical Proof for the Constancy of the
Speed of Light )
• Über die Genauigkeit, innerhalb welcher die
Unabhängigkeit der Lichtgeschwindigkeit
von der Bewegung der Quelle behauptet
werden kann.
• (About the Accuracy Within Which the
Independence of the Speed of Light From the
Movement of the Source Can be Stated)
•A Proof of the Constancy of the Velocity of Light
• On
the Constancy of the Velocity of Light
Copies of these papers, and their English
Translations, are available online at:
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desitter.htm
De Sitter’s “Binary Star” Argument
L
L
------ = T + ------c–u
c+u
The arrival time distortions would lead
To departures from Keplarian motions
Which have never been observed.
Hence Ritz’s theory was to be abandoned.
And it mostly was, for nearly 75 years.
DeSitter didn’t address c+v induced
starlight intensity variations…
but…
Where the faster light (from the approaching
side of the orbit) catches up with the
the slower light (from the receding side
of the orbit) you could see a star
on both sides of it’s orbit simultaneously.
Vladimir Sekerin 1987
• Typical overtaking distances are so great
that an observer cannot resolve the
simultaneously arriving images.
• Two superimposed stellar images would
be brighter than a single image.
• Thus, stars that are periodically varying in
brightness may be irresolvable binaries.
• http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1.sekerin.htm
Sekerin’s Brightness and Apparent Radial Velocity Curves
Binary Star Light Curves based on de
Sitter’s argument against Ritz
(Sekerin 1988)
De Sitter’s Whimsical Images
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cepheid variables
Crab Pulsar
Geminga
SN 1987a
SS 433
SN 2006gy
Supernova SN 2006gy
• Billed as most powerful supernova
• In Galaxy NGC 1260(?)
• Next image is a
• Blink Comparator using
• Lick IR image
• Chandra X-ray image
Super Nova 2006gy
NGC 1260
Position History of SN 2006gy
• One arc second of angular displacement,
over a period of one month, at a distance
of 238 million light years corresponds to a
linear speed of:
•
•
18,000 times the speed of light
•
Houston, We’ve got a problem!
If the reported celestial coordinates for SN 2006gy
are correct, then it’s “progenitor” must actually
be a very local (dim) star, that passed close to
another local (also dim) star. This encounter
resulted in Ritzian relativity light variations, and
the “association” with NGC 1260 is only apparent.
In this case the star was close enough to earth for
us to see it at different locations along it’s path.
The following animation shows how this may have
occurred.
Caution!
Apparent time reversals
will be in action.
Binary encounter showing time reversal
It gets Stranger!
The next animation embeds the Chandra
X-ray and Lick IR images of SN 2006gy
into some manually prepared theoretical
frames to show how the time reversal
may have appeared.
Check speaker’s eyes for odd motions.
Barnard’s Star
• Very low mass red dwarf
• Distance from sun = 5.98 light years
• Apparent magnitude = 9.57
(1/27th the brightness of the dimmest visible stars)
• Proper motion = 0.86 arcsec/month
• It “flashed” in 1998 – Cause unknown
• Some think it has one or two planets
SN 2006gy Astrometry References
CBET = The Central Bureau for Electronic Telegrams
(Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams)
•
•
•
•
(1) Quinby, R. 24 Sep 2006, CBET 644, 1
(2) Prieto, J.L. et al., 26 Sep 2006, CBET 648, 1
(3) Foley, R.J. et al., Apx 27 Oct 2006, CBET 695, 1
(4) Ofek, E.O., et al., The Astrophysical Journal, 659:
L13-L16, April 10, 2007.
• (5) Smith, N., et al., arXiv:astro-ph/061267v3 22 May
2007
Other Links
• Translation of Sekerin’s paper
• http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
• Followup work by author:
• http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/binaries.htm
• Author’s “Theory of Everything”
• http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/eas.htm